Template:Did you know nominations/Theory of historical trajectory
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Theory of historical trajectory
[edit]- ... that Karl Marx's theory of historical trajectory attempted to prove the long-term unsustainability of capitalism?
- Reviewed: Putin's rynda
Created/expanded and self-nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 03:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Article is new enough, long enough, there are plenty of citations. There could be a few more commas and such, but my main question is whether or not this article belongs on its own page or as part of Historical materialism. It seems primarily there to support the article on Erik Olin Wright, who is cited at the beginning as having analyzed it and is the source for all but two of nine refs. In addition to that, I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, but the first ref is on the first sentence, which reads, "Theory of historical trajectory is part of Karl Marx's historical materialism." That made me think I was going to see the term "theory of historical trajectory" in that ref, but I didn't. The subject was certainly there, as described in the article, but I didn't see the term itself and having read the whole article before I looked at a ref and was already wondering if the article wasn't better part of another, failing to see the term in the ref only reinforced that feeling. In the meantime, I've tweaked your hook to add an article (the). Marrante (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is something I raised both on talk of that article and on hm page. No other editor seems interested in discussing this, so I have no idea what to do. The article may be an orphan, but that should not stop it from being DYKed. I have no problem with it being tagged with {{orphan}}, neither. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 12:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll run with it. I just looked at the Wright article (which is in eight other languages) and at the second reference, which does use the term, plus I looked at the HM talk page again and noted the date of your post, as well. If no one has bothered to dispute what you've done. My question about notability has been resolved and the hook is supported in that first ref. There's no preview on the Wright book, so that has to be AGF. This article is good to go. Marrante (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
